[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 189 KB, 1200x1507, ksm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16767506 No.16767506 [Reply] [Original]

Is there an ethical system more cucked than utilitarianism?

It only works for simple and local situations. If you try and apply it to society it just becomes a minefield of exceptions where it ends up completely unravelling.

>> No.16767532

>>16767506
Are you retarded? A law can lead to the greatest pleasure because it would deter harm.

>> No.16767556

>>16767532
Gang rape is valid and even encouraged under utilitarianism.

>> No.16767774

>>16767556
Are you retarded? You're literally talking about a system created by the same guy who thought up the harm principle.

>> No.16768163

>>16767506
>John Stuart Mill is the flattest among the famous flatheads of the 19th century.
-Weininger

>> No.16768170

>bentham dies
>wants his severed head to be preserved
>the process discolors it, melts his hair and teeth, and shrinks the skin
>DNA testing centuries later proves he was autistic
I find this hilarious.

>> No.16768298

>It only works for simple and local situations
The opposite, actually. When an ethical dilemma involves people you know, you tend to behave with respect for persons. But in societies with more than hundreds of people, it becomes more natural to do ethics with abstractions like statistics and economies of scale. These lead naturally to utilitarianism. I have a paper on moral cognition that talks about this. I can link it if you want.

>> No.16768469

>>16767506
>You're literally talking about a system created by the same guy who thought up the harm principle.
One of the many minefield of exceptions.

"Oh yeah bro, utilitarianism works except in these 50,000 situations where you don't do it"

>> No.16768492

>>16768469
Because Moral Systems are complex and aren't made up to be summarized on "don't do this, do this"?

>> No.16768531

>>16768492
The categorical imperative is pretty snappy.

>> No.16768550

>>16767506
>Is there an ethical system more cucked than utilitarianism?
Maybe. Can't think of any now.

>It only works for simple and local situations.
What do you mean by "works" here? In what way?

>> No.16768603

>>16768550
>What do you mean by "works" here? In what way?
Once you've got enough people in a situation it quickly turns into the tyranny of the majority and you continually need to add exceptions and qualifications for utilitarianism to work.

>> No.16768619

>>16768603
I actually think utilitarianism leads more to the absolutist kind of tyranny.
It's the "I'm gonna decide how to make the least amount of people suffer, and I'm the one who's going to set the right criteria for that."
I don't think that the majority ultimately decides how ethical choices are made because their consent isn't exactly required.

>> No.16768622

>>16767506

Mill says you have to respect individual rights and agency, the handwringing about "group tyranny" is a sparknotes tier critique.

>> No.16768640

>>16768622
>the handwringing about "group tyranny" is a sparknotes tier critique
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
>Mill says you have to respect individual rights and agency
And then what makes utilitarianism different from any other system if the only unifying thing in every situation that uses it is "be nice"?

>> No.16768671

>Once you've got enough people in a situation it quickly turns into the tyranny of the majority
Partially. It actually turns into a tyranny of those who receive the most utility from a resource. Nozick's conception of the utility monster demonstrates this. If I receive 100 units of pleasure from eating a cookie and you only receive 1, why should ever I be fair and share with you? Mathematically, you should receive nothing.

>> No.16768684

>>16768640

Another sparknotes critique. Did you read a summary paragraph of utilitarianism as a concept or did you read the specific literature Mill and others have written? Any crtiques?

Whenever you have some retarded opinion, consider this: it is unlikely you have any original thoughts. People with a lot of free time have had your thoughts and fleshed them out and written about them a great deal. Do yourself a favor and seek these out. Since you haven't even read JSM, I recommend starting there.

>> No.16768689

>>16767506
You're right that utilitarianism is dumb but not for the reason you keep saying. Per Anscombe, the entire concept of "pleasure" is nonsensical and difficult to define. It often reduces (in modern philosophy) to chemical pleasure/pain, which is certainly not the basis for anyone's actions. More broad definitions (such as Stuart Mill's) tend to reduce to "pleasure is everything which is good, and pain is everything which is bad," requiring us to prove "good" and "bad," thus achieving nothing and requiring us to come up with some other real ethical system.

>> No.16768698

>>16767506
is the mark on his forehead from when they removed his horn?

>> No.16768701

>>16768684
I can smell the farts through my monitor. Jesus Christ anon.

>> No.16768707

>>16768698
Yes, Mill is literally Hellboy.